indiscriminantly kill and name americans. we would rather go there abroad rather than them coming here to our school yards and playgrounds. as a marine veteran in the persian gulf war and currently serving in the mississippi army national guard, i know what good military command looks like. general petraeus is a good soldier and someone whose opinion i believe very much. his quote was the taliban and al qaeda obviously would trump this as a victory and a success. needless to say it would completely undermine everything our troopers have fought and sacrificed so much for. quote. mr. speaker, congress' constitution responsibility is to assure that our men and women in the armed services have the trools and equipment to do their job and come home safely to their family. our war fighters don't need armed be chair generals in this

congress arbitrarily dictating terms that will cause irreparable harm to them and to the national security of this country. i urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: could i ask the speaker how much time is remaying for each individual here? the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from ohio has 5 3/4 minutes. the gentlelady from florida has 3 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from california, 9 1/2 minutes. and the gentleman from north carolina, five minutes. mr. kucinich: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: spending on the afghanistan war is rising at an accelerating rate. in the period of three years, 2010, 2011, 2012, we'll spend

45% more on afghanistan than the preceding eight years. this is an example of out-of-control federal spending. if congress is serious about being fiscally responsible and about cutting the federal budget by three figures, then cutting spending on the out-of-control, $100 billion a year war in afghanistan must be a serious consideration. and this legislation, house concurrent resolution 28, gives those who are concerned about the cost of this war finally to have a voice. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? the chair will recognize for closing speeches in the reverse order of opening. that is the gentleman from north carolina, the gentleman from california, the gentleman from ohio, and finally the gentlelady from florida.

the gentleman will state his point. mr. kucinich: is it the province of the chair to determine that closing statements are in order? the speaker pro tempore: recognition is the jurisdiction of the chair. mr. kucinich: recognition. further parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- mr. kucinich: does the chair have the right to determine that closing statements are the order of business here? the speaker pro tempore: it is the custom of the house for the chair to recognize members in the reverse order of their opening statements to make their closing. mr. kucinich: further parliamentary inquiry. does the chair have the ability to direct individual members that they are to give their closing statements?

the speaker pro tempore: they yield to their time to another member at their discretion. mr. kucinich: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair asked if any members sought recognition. the chair saw no member seeking recognition. the gentleman from north carolina, for what purpose do you rise? mr. jones: mr. chairman, did you say i have five minutes' time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: that is correct. you wish to claim time now? mr. jones: yes. i think i'll claim time. i yield myself three minutes at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, first i'd like to say to every member that's been on the floor that served in our military. thank you and god bless you. as i say all the time for those overseas in our country. because i did not serve i sought out a marine general that every marine that spoke on the floor today, if i said his name, i don't have permission, they would salute him. they know him. let me share with you what this

marine general said to me back in november when i told him i read an article in "the new york times" that the army colonel saying the training of afghans is going well. so i emailed him. this is six-point response. i'll read three. continued belief that we can train the afghan army to be effective in the time we have is nonsense. the vast majority cannot even read. they are people from the villages hooked on drugs and undisciplined. the south vietnam sergeants were much better trained and they could not stem the tied. he further states, what is it we are look a cheeve? what are the measures of effectiveness? what is our exit strategy? same old questions, no answers. he closed by saying this, what do we say to the mother and father, the wife of the last marine killed to support a corrupt government and a corrupt leader in a war that cannot be

won? i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida, do you seek -- mr. ros-lehtinen: i ask my good friend, the gentleman from california, if we could have two minutes of his time. mr. berman: if the gentlelady would yield. mr. speaker, i would like to yield two minutes of my remaining time to the -- my chairman. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from florida can control that time. ms. ros-lehtinen: how much time then would we have to close? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida has 5 1/2 minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: we'll reserve right now. the speaker pro tempore: who seeks -- the gentlelady reserves. who seeks recognition? seeing none, we'll proceed with closing statements in the reverse of the opening statements. first the gentleman from north carolina. mr. jones: mr. speaker, how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 3 1/2 minutes. mr. jones: i yield that time to

the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. kucinich: authorization military force an the justification for our continued military presence in afghanistan is that the taliban in the past provide add safe haven for al qaeda or could do so again in the future. general petraeus has already admitted that al qaeda has little or no presence in afghanistan. al qaeda an international organization and, yes, they are a threat to america. the taliban is only a threat to us as long as we continue our military occupation in afghanistan. after more than nine years of military occupation in afghanistan, can we really continue to claim to be acting in self-defense? the premise that the presence of our troops on the ground keeps us safer at home has been repudiated by recent terrorist attacks on the united states all done by people other than afghans.

outraged at continuing u.s. military occupation of predominantly muslim countries. that's not to justify what they do, but it is to clarify the condition that we have in afghanistan. for how long are we going to continue to dedicate hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives before we realize we can't win afghanistan militarily? at the end of the year, the administration and u.s. military leaders were touting peace talks to end the war with high level taliban leaders. these leaders turned out to be fake. a november, 2010 article in "the new york times" detailed joint u.s. an afghan negotiations with a man the u.s. claim was one of the most senior commanders in the taliban. according to "the new york times" the episode underscores the uncertain and even bizarre nature of the atmosphere in which afghan and american leaders search for ways to bring

the war to an end. leaders of the taliban are believed to be hiding in pakistan, possibly with the assistance of the pakistani government, which receives billions of dollars in usaid, unquote. how can we claim a cornerstone of our counterinsurgency strategy is to take out taliban strongholds throughout the country while at the same time conducting negotiations with the taliban? this episode further underlies a significant -- we think we can separate the taliban from the rest of the afghan population. our our kearnt insurgey sen strategic fails to wreck size a basic principle. occupations. occupations, fuel insurgencies. occupations fuel insurgencies the taliban is a local movement. we lost the vietnam war because we failed to win the hearts and minds of the local population. without providing them with a competent government that provided them with basic security at a decent living, we

are committing the same mistake in afghanistan. news reports indicate the taliban is regaining momentum. the increase in civilian casualties due to higher levels of violence by insurgents further undermines the assurances of progress. as we send more troops into the country and kill innocent civilians with errant air strikes, the taliban gains more support as resisters of foreign occupation. if we accept the premise we can never leave afghanistan until the taliban is eradicated, we'll be there forever. i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record an article from the nation, america's failed war in afghanistan, no policy change is going to affect the outcome. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to put into the record an article from al jazeera.net which points out for all practical purposes washington has given up on its

counterinsurgency strategy. >> without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record from alternet articles posted on february 6, 2011, that state there's a damning new report that shows the u.s. strategic is blocking a chance for peace in afghanistan. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to place into the record an article from abc news that says afghan security is the worst in a decade. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: and i'm asking unanimous consent to place into the record an article from "the new york times" discussing the counterintelligence strategic whichcies the u.s. is pulling back in the afghan valley it called vital for the war. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: how much time do i have left out of this -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kucinich: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 7

1/2 minutes. mr. berman: as i understand it these are closing- the speaker pro tempore: correct. mr. berman: i simply would very quickly make the case that this resolution should be voted against for several reasons. initially because it improperly invokes a provision of the war powers act that's inapplicable. this war was authorized by the u.s. congress. secondly, the matter on which this would force this withdrawal is irresponsible and i don't think is the right way to do it. thirdly, that i am not prepared at this point of view to say that fame your is in any way inevitable. and that we should not at this time make the judgment to pull the plug out from what we are

doing in afghanistan. i would urge a no vote for the resolution. i yield back the entire balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from ohio has 5 1/4 minutes. mr. kucinich: how much? the speaker pro tempore: 5 1/4 minutes. mr. kucinich: we stated over and over in this debate, the cost of this war, in this budget alone would be $113 billion. $113 billion. there are members who have come to this floor trying to whack $1 billion in spending here and there. this is $113 billion. you want to cut out waste, let's get out of afghanistan. keep in mind that when you go to the pentagon and some of our members have, and have gone to afghanistan, there's an open-ended war going on here. there's no end in sight. i submitted for the record articles with respect to that. we are going to be there, hear this, we are going to be there through at least 2020. that's going to cost us an extra, at least an extra $1

trillion. where are we going to get that money? are we going to cut social security for that? are we going to cut health care and funds for education? are we going to cut more funds for home heating aid? where are we going to get this money? are we ready to give up our entire domestic agenda so that we can continue on the path of a war to prop up a corrupt regime whose friends are building villas in due by -- dubai? presumably with money that comes through the united states that's shipped out in planes out of the kabul armente. we have to start standing up to america here. i appreciate and respect every member of this congress who served in the military. we honor them. just as they honor the members of my own family. my father, frank, who is a world war ii veteran. my brother, frank, who was a vietnam veteran. my brother, a vet ram-era

veteran. my sister, an army veteran. i come from a family that appreciates service to our country. but how are we serving our troops by letting them in a situation that's impossible? whether it's greater numbers of them returning home with injuries from i.e.d.'s, how are we serving our troops by telling them we are going to keep extending the period of the war? who's speaking up truly for our troops here? is it general petraeus who says, we'll just keep the war going and maybe we'll, maybe we'll send 2,000 troops out of afghanistan or redirect them by 2014. . he doesn't get to make the choice. that choice must be made by the congress of the united states. it's time we started to stand up for the constitution of the united states which, last i checked in article 1, section 8

provides that congress has to make the decision whether or not to send our troops into war. we have not the right to give that over to a president, over to a general or anybody else. this our -- this is our prerogative inside of this congress. in 2001, i joined with members of this house in voting for the authorization of military force following the terrorist attacks on 9/11. i don't take a backseat to anyone in standing up to defend this country, but as the united states continues in what is now the longest war in our history, it has become clear that the authorization for military force is being used as a cart blanche for circumventing congress' role as a co-equal branch of government. i want you to hear this. we are a co-equal branch of government.

we are not servants of generals. we are a co-equal branch of government expressing the sovereign will of the american people. it has become clear this administration just as the last administration is willing to commit us to an endless war and an endless stream of money. just over a year -- just a year after a commitment of additional 30,000 troops to afghanistan and continued assurances of progress. they have been walking that dog down the road for the last seven years. progress. my legislation invokes the war powers resolution of 1973 and if enacted would require this president to withdrawal u.s. armed forces out of afghanistan by december 31, 2011. now, regardless of your support or opposition to this war in afghanistan, this debate has been a critical opportunity to evaluate the human and the economic costs as this congress works to address our country's

dire financial straits. those that don't support may not agree on a timeline but it's time to rethink our national security strategy and we know that the costs are great. we can't get away from the costs of this war. nobel prize-winning economist, joseph and linda, his associate, wrote a book on the iraq book. they projected a minimum of $3 trillion in costs. i ask unanimous consent to put into the record, mr. speaker, a statement that i made eight -- over eight years ago on -- at the beginning of the iraq war when i pointed out there was nothing, no reason why we should be going to war in iraq because there was no proof that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: i mention that in terms of this debate because we are at the confluence of events, the anniversary of the iraq war, the confluence of the funding of the war in

afghanistan. we got to get out of afghanistan. we got to get out of iraq. we got to start taking care of things here at home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida has 5 1/2 minutes to close. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. and i'm pleased and honored to yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from michigan, mr. mccotter, a member of the financial services committee, a former member of our foreign affairs committee, and i'd like to remind my good friend that we still have a vacancy in -- g.o.p. vacancy in our committee and we need freedom and democracy believers like mr. mccotter, seniority retained. mr. mccotter: i thank the gentlelady. i thank her for her kind words and her attempt to draft me. in the stage of -- in this age of hope and peril, we all stand with earnestness and sincerity to discuss matters of liberty and tyranny, matters of life

and death. when we see in afghanistan -- what we see in afghanistan is the counterinsurgency operation being led by the united states. it is the most difficult and most painful type of military operation to witness because it does involve working with the population, winning hearts and minds and helping to build the institutions of democracy and liberty at the community and national level which have been nonexistent for decades. but because the cause is difficult does not mean we can turn away from it because the afghan people cannot turn away from it. in 2006 i was fortunate to be on a codel with many of my colleagues and we had the opportunity to meet women who

were serving in the afghan national assembly. and despite the difficulties in translation, it was very clear that they wanted to accomplish two things. they wanted to serve the afghan people who entrusted them with their positions and they wanted to honor the men and women of the united states military who had risked and given so much for them to have that opportunity. in this debate today, as i said, i deeply appreciate the sincerity and earnestness of this debate because in this instance clearly it is not one based upon partisan division but one upon the dictates of conscience. but i think it's important that we look into this situation and

see that it is not simply the situation that is involved here, that it is not simply a question of leaving without consequence, because if we leave now, if we back this resolution there will be consequences to the female afghanistan national assembly parliamentarians who are trying to build freedom in that country. in my discussion with those brave women they brought up how difficult it was for them, how hard it would be to build a sustainable democracy, to build an economy, to build in many ways what we here take for granted. and i said to them it was very important to remember that the united states itself was not always a great national power and a beacon of hope and

freedom, that in our darkest days after the revolution there were many who thought this free republic would fail. there were enemies who sought its destruction, and yet at the founding time the people of the united states and their leaders were able to take this nation's democracy and turn it into one that not only secured freedom for itself but expanded it to others. and i said that within the halls of the united states congress and within the halls of our institutions you can see the pictures of founders like jefferson and madison hanging from the walls to remind us of what we've endured, what we enjoy and what we must return. and i told the afghan national assembly women that one day their daughters and granddaughters would look down -- look up and see on the walls their portraits hanging in a free afghanistan that was a

beacon itself to those who were oppressed. because they will be free and because we will honor our duty not to seek miserly to hold our own freedom for ourselves but because we will follow what lincoln said in seeking to ensure freedom for the enslaved, we will continue to stand with them. we will continue to stand with the afghan people. we will continue to honor the commitment of the solemn word of the united states that she gave to that country, and one day we will look back and we'll be proud of the votes we will cast today. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to the order of the house of wednesday, march 26, 2001, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the concurrent resolution.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it and the concurrent resolution is agreed to. ms. ros-lehtinen: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 1764 -- 174, i call up h.r. 1076, a bill to prohibit

federal funding of nation public radio and the use of federal funds to acquire radio content. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1076, a bill hibthibt -- a bill to prohibit federal funding of nation public radio and the use of federal funds to acquire radio content. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 174, the bill is considered as read. the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. and mr. speaker, i ask that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of

h.r. 1076, a bill to get the federal government and federal taxpayers out of the business of buying radio program they do not agree with. this is a bill that is long overdue. regardless of what you think of n.p.r., its programming or statements by its management, the time has come to cut the umbilical chord from the taxpayer support that has become as predictable as an entitlement program. much has changed, mr. speaker, in the media landscape since the corporation for public broadcasting was first created in 1967. followed by its creation of national public radio in 1970. today, we have multiple listening choices. there's analogue radio, digital radio, satellite radio, streaming radio over the internet and podcasts, both commercial and the

self-published variety. choice and available content is not the problem. if you want to find some content, the only question is where you will find it. in these challenging economic times, committing the taxpayer to fund and support particular content, including content he or she may never listen to, highlights this absurd thing of the past. it's time to move forward and let national public radio spread its wings and support itself. this legislation does several important things. it prohibits direct federal funding of n.p.r., national public radio, and more importantly it ensures the american taxpayer will not be funding through their tax dollars radio program from

n.p.r. or other outlets with which they may not agree. it is also important to recognize that this bill does not do a few things. it does not defund public radio stations. and i want to repeat that, mr. speaker, because i think it's such an important point. it does not defund public radio stations. they still may use federal funding to operate their station or to produce their own programming. public radio stations may also continue to purchase programming from n.p.r. or other sources, just not with federal taxpayer dollars. and this bill has no impact. i want to repeat that. this bill has no impact on public television. the added benefit of this legislation is that it ensures that if taxpayer dollars are

necessary and given to local stations, it will not be used to purchase generic national programming but instead it can be used to produce local content that actually will meet the needs of the community where these are located. mr. speaker, at this time i want to reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i yield myself three minutes. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1076. this bill will cripple national public radio, public radio stations and programming that is vital to over 27 million americans. we are now voting to deny the public access to one of our nation's most credible source of news coverage.

c.b.o. has scored this bill. it does not save a penny. this means that this legislation does not serve any fiscal purpose. but it does serve an ideological one. this legislation is not about reforming n.p.r., it is about punishing n.p.r. we held no hearings on this bill. it didn't get referred to the committee for consideration. it's being handled as if it were an emergency. we don't even know all the facts . but that's apparently no impediment. for decades decisions on federal support for public broadcasting have been made two years in advance to insulate public broadcasting from politically motivated interference. this bill removes that buffer.

n.p.r. is now exposed to the full force of the political winds that blow through the house of representatives. that means the independents and -- independence and objectivity that public broadcasting has tried to uphold is now subject clearly to political interference. for those who complained that they don't want content to be one way or the other on the political spectrum, but to be honest and fair, the right wing republicans are trying to impose in their view of what n.p.r. should be saying in the content of their programming. they'll say that's not the case. but, mr. speaker, that is the case. there is no reason for this bill. it is vindictive. it is mean-spirited. it will hit the smallest stations in rure areas hard. public radio is indispensable for access to news that's hard

to get, especially with broadband service is limited. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. i ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady from the state of california, ms. eshoo, the ranking member of the subcommittee on telecommunication, control the rest of our time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i would like to recognize the author of the legislation, mr. lamborn, he is recognized for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, madam blackburn, for your great work you do on the committee. i introduced h.r. 1076 because the federal government can no longer afford to fund programs that are fully capable of standing on their own. this is not about the ideology of n.p.r. executives or the content that n.p.r. produces. but whether in this age of

trillion dollar annual deficits taxpayers should subsidize a nonessential entity. plain and simple, this bill accomplishes three things. first, it prohibits public radio stations from using federal funds to purchase programming. current federal law requires that about 26% of federal grants to public radio stations be used for the production or acquisition of programming. many stations use these restricted grants to purchase programming from n.p.r. these programming fees are the largest single source of n.p.r. revenue at $56 million in fiscal year 2010. second, h.r. 1076 prohibits station from using federal funds to pay n.p.r. dues. over 00 member stations paid a total of $2.8 million in dues to n.p.r. third, my bill prohibits direct federal funding of national public radio. for fiscal year 2010, n.p.r. received over $5 million in direct funding from the corporation for public broadcasting, departments of

education and commerce, and the national endowment for the arts. these three sources of revenues i just described totaled about $64 million in fiscal year 2010. local public radio stations would not be able to use federal tax dollars under this bill to purchase content whether it's from n.p.r. or any other vendor. however under this bill a station could use other dollars for the payment of n.p.r. dues or the acquisition of programming. should this bill become law, the prohibition of funds would take effect immediately. but the real issue today is the proper role of the federal government with national public radio and whether government programs and services that can be funded privately should receive taxpayer dollars. we live in an age of digital radio, computerized digital streaming, commercial all news radio, and radio talk shows, many of which are also streamed on the internet or over satellite radio. these provide sources of news and opinion without federal

taxpayer dollars. n.p.r. should do the same. with the national debt over $13 trillion, the government should simply not continue to fund nonessential services. and this bill is just one step. long before any firings, videos, and executive comments at n.p.r., i sponsored legislation in congress to pull the plug on taxpayer funding for the corporation for public broadcasting, n.p.r.'s parent company, as well as n.p.r. last year many of you will remember this issue came up as a youcut item and we voted in support of defunding. last month this house passed h.r. 1, within that bill the corporation for public broadcasting's unobligated funds for fiscal year 2011 would be rescinded. when you cupple h.r. 1 with this bill, h.r. 1076, we end taxpayers having to subsidize national public radio. i'm a strong believer in the free market. i would like to see n.p.r.

rework its business model and compete for all its income. n.p.r. already receives a huge amount of funding from private individuals and organizations through donations and sponsorships. n.p.r. can and should be entirely supported with private sources. in my own state of colorado, colorado public radio received in fiscal year 2010 only 6% of its funding from the corporation for public broadcasting. now, according to this bill colorado public radio is still permitted to apply for and receive federal grants through the corporation for public broadcasting, but they cannot use federal money for the n.p.r. dues or purchasing of content. they could use the other 94% of their money to purchase program content. will this potentially require them to review and reprioritize where money is spent? i'm sure it will. but will it kill its programming? no way.

according to n.p.r., federal funding to supplement operations amounts to less than 2% of its annual budget. some have said this congress should not bother with such a small amount of money. only in washington could anyone say $64 million is not worth saving. you have to start somewhere if you're truly serious about getting our fiscal house in order. if congress cannot make difficult decisions in the small areas, how can we even begin to tackle entitlements or other major programs? if we look at the video that has received so much attention, ron shuler amids n.p.r. would be better off without federal funding. there is no need for further debate. n.p.r. does not need taxpayer dollars. we can save a program or we can save our country. americans want washington to get serious about ending our overspending. if we can do that, the economy will get better and we'll have less unemployment and more jobs.

mrs. blackburn: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamborn: to wrap up, like many americans i enjoy much of n.p.r.'s programming, but let it live on its own. it can do that simply by changing its business model. just take the taxpayer out of the equation. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from tennessee reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in fierce opposition to this bill which is going to adversely affect more than 34 million national public radio listeners through 900 local stations across our entire country. my republican colleagues have declared an emergency to rush this bill to the floor without any hearings whatsoever to examine the proposal. i think that's a bad way to do

business. we have many emergencies to deal with in our country, but attacking and crippling n.p.r. is hardly an emergency. what the bill does, and it does it in a very sneaky backdoor way, what the bill does is it cuts off the use of all federal funding to n.p.r. by preventing any grants to it. it prevents any support to n.p.r. by the corporation for public broadcasting. and it prevents support to n.p.r. programming from public radio stations across the country. in other words, it cripples it, it hobbles it. which is really what the majority is seeking to do. this proposal is not going to do anything about reducing the deficit. the c.b.o. has weighed in. it doesn't cut any federal spending. in fact, the bill doesn't produce one penny in savings.

what's very clear is what it does do. and it's really purposeful. and that is to hobble n.p.r., threatening 9,000 jobs at stations across the country. why? i think the motivations behind this effort are quite clear. they are rooted in an ideological view about what n.p.r. broadcasts. and it capitalizes on recent headlines involving ron shuler and ron williams. this attack on n.p.r. strikes at the core of a wide array of n.p.r. programming. that americans enjoy every single day all week long across the country. from the morning edition and to two of my favorites, "car talk" and "the world of agra." i acknowledge that our nation faces threats, but "car talk" is hardly one ever them.

and neither is diane reams. silencing what some disagree with, make no mistake about it, is a threat to our democracy. a great democracy does not silence voices. we want many voices to the many. n.p.r. programming reaches more than 900 independently owned and operated stations across the country. from san francisco kqed, the most listened to public radio station in the country, with who are than 740,000 listeners iche week, to small rural stations -- listeners each week, to small rural stations, like the chairman of the subcommittee, in pendleton, oregon. these stations provide an important public service to the local community and people trust it and they enjoy it. they want it. they like it. this is national programming with local listenership. and n.p.r.'s listenership has

increased unlike other stations by 72% over the last 10 years. in a recently national survey found, that's why i think this is an ill begotten proposal by the majority, you say you listen to the american people, i think you have to take the plugs out of your ears, a recent survey found almost 70% of all voters across the entire political spectrum oppose terminating the funding for public broadcasting, including 56% of republicans in the country. so i think it's time to stand up for n.p.r. i think that this is a phony emergency measure and i don't think n.p.r. deserves to be treated this way. i urge my colleagues to vote to preserve really what i think is a national treasure. that it provides in very tough times very clear and important

news and information to instruct our country and listeners in local communities around our nation. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. black blurn: -- mrs. blackburn: thank you, i yield one minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker. i thank the gentlelady. mr. speaker, let as -- let's be honest and talk about what this bill is about. this bill is about making sure that we are spending taxpayer dollars the way that the people that earn them would spend it. and we saw as the gentlelady from california indicated, on video, executives at n.p.r. saying, that they don't need taxpayer dollars. so that's number one.

that's out there. that was demonstrated for all of america to see. we are also in the process of making sure that washington begins to do what every american family and small businessperson is having to do right now. it's called tightening the belt. it's called trying to learn how to do more with less. . and inherently what that means is we got to start prioritizing the things that are important to the american people. the problem is we've seen n.p.r. and its programming often veer far from what most americans would like to see as far as the expenditure of their taxpayer dollars. that's the bottom line. nobody's on a rampage. nobody is trying to say that we don't like n.p.r. for n.p.r.'s sake. we've seen how they spend their

money. it's time to prioritize. it's time to reflect the common sense of the american people, and that's why the bill takes the form that it does. it says that we've got to go, number one, listen to the executives at n.p.r. that says they don't need taxpayer funding. well, listen, we are all about looking for ways to cut right now and save on both sides of the aisle. we ought to take that advice for what it is. but we also know that n.p.r. takes its funding and benefits from taxpayer dollars through the payments of local stations across the country. so what we're saying by this bill, those stations are not going to be starved from corporation for public broadcasting grants, unlike the lady indicated. what they are going to be told is you are not going to be using those taxpayer dollars for programming because we've seen how n.p.r. has used that

funding and the kind of funding that's been involved. we are trying to find commonality. our country is made up of much diversity with people of a lot of differing opinions. why should we allow taxpayer dollars to be used to advocate one ideology? why should we? we shouldn't. we should insist that our taxpayer dollars are prioritized and the people's interest of this country are honored. that's why i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to congresswoman doris matsui. the speaker pro tempore: for how long? ms. eshoo: for two minutes, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. matsui: thank you. i thank the gentlelady for yielding me time. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1076. i can't believe what i'm hearing from the other side of the aisle. it's not a lefty hyped organization. this bill would prevent public radio stations from using -- from purchasing programs. mr. speaker, this would be a huge disruption to our national public radio system economy and most importantly the intellectual content and news that so many americans rely upon. according to a recent study, n.p.r.'s overall audience grew last year to over 27 million weekly listeners. that's over 60% overall since 2000. and this is when most other

media markets or outlets are struggling. i was a former board chair of sacramento's local pbs tv station, and i was chairman of a tv station. however, i can attest to the value the national public broadcasting programming offers to my constituents. mr. speaker, thousands of my constituents rely on local n.p.r. stations to get their news, and this is a very diverse group. in fact, since this bill was introduced, i've received a significant number of calls from them voicing very strong support for our n.p.r. and very, very strong opposition to this legislation. one of my constituents told me that listening to n.p.r. makes him a more informed -- certainly more engaged citizen. moreover, this bill will not produce any savings for the taxpayer and will not reduce

the deficit. to my constituents, it's a simple equation of value for money. and also, this is about jobs. we need to talk about jobs. public radio stations employ over 9,000 workers across the country, including 40 from sacramento. mr. speaker, these are jobs we cannot lose. i urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. at this point i'd like to yield two minutes to one of our new freshman members, mr. crawford from arkansas, who is a broadcaster and brings that expertise to this chamber. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 1076. as a broadcaster shes i understand the -- i understand the freedom to express yourself but to do it on your own merit.

i brought an idea to the marketplace to develop a radio news network. started with four stations and within four years was able to grow that with 50 stations serving five states. i did not ask for one single dime from the federal government. i think the freedom to succeed in this country needs to exist also with the freedom to fail. we have an open marketplace. we have an opportunity to sell advertising around the ideas that which express on the radio. i'm a success story in using the open marketplace with freedom to succeed. it also comes with the freedom to fail. earlier in the year or last year, rather, i started a radio station. a small venture. i populated that to staff with folks that were on unemployment. so i know what it means to create jobs. and certainly this is not about further burdening our taxpayer with support of an industry that is perfectly capable of supporting itself. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from tennessee reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'd like to now call on mr. weiner from new york and also inquire how much time we have on this side, how much time is left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california has 21 minutes remaining. the gentleman from new york is recognized for -- ms. eshoo: he's recognized for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: two minutes. mr. weiner: crisis averted, ladies and gentlemen. what a relief. what a relief. i'm glad we got the economy back going. i'm so glad we secured our nuclear power plants. so glad americans are back to work. we discovered a target we can all agree upon. it's these guys. this is a problem. it's clicking cadillac. -- it's click and clack. now, let's look at the record here. for one, they talk in that boston accent. "car talk."

it's a car, congressmen. second, they talk about master cylinders. it's kinky. i am glad my republican friends are finally getting to the bottom of this. and then with all the giggling and snorting they do every weekend on their show, it's got to be some kind of a code. they're clearly talking to the russians or chinese with all that giggling and snorting. i am so relieved we had this emergency session that we waived the rules of the house that requires 72 hours so we can finally get these guys off my radio. click and clack. i know it. these guys are political. they make no sense about most of what they say. you know what, i'm glad we are not going to have to listen to them. i'm said the republicans said enough of click and clack. that's what they said in campaign 2010.

it's a contract with america, get rid of click and clack. it's about time. the last thing we want is informative solutions to how we talk about cars and think about all the people they are going to put out of work. you know, your customer service. and the director of ethics. all of these guys that finally are going to be taken off the public peril, the republican party, no one can say they are not in touch. they get it. they understand where the american people are. the american people are not concerned about the economy around the world. they're staring at their radio station saying, get rid of click and clack. finally my republican friends are getting rid of them. kudos to you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from california. the chair will remind all

persons in the gallery that they're here as guests of the house and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of the proceedings is in violation of the rules of the house. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'd now like to yield two minutes to a highly respected member of the energy and commerce committee and the telecommunications and internet subcommittee, mr. mike doyle from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: how long are you yielding? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today the house republicans want to eliminate funding for n.p.r. some because they think the government should not operate a new service and some because they think the reporting is biased. i believe they're wrong on both counts. public radio plays an important role in our communities as a source of news and inter--

entertainment. n.p.r. listeners are unaware of indisputable -- are aware of indisputable facts. even glen beck's website, the blaze, explains that the video is neither fair nor balanced, how it's basically a lie. and my colleagues should consider the fact that many n.p.r. programs have nothing to do with news or politics. where's the bias in "car talk"? there might be a bias between pintos or pacers but not a political bias. what about music broadcast? there might be a bias against wachovia but not platecal bias. even so, if this bill were simply to defund n.p.r.'s direct public contribution then at least it would only impact the organization with the alleged political bias which is again based on a lie. but this bill goes further. it hurts local public radio stations and tens of millions

of listeners from across the country. if this bill is enacted, communities across the country will be denied programming that their residents want. whatever happened to the philosophy that more choice is better? my colleagues, this is bad public policy. this is a terrible bill. this is a terrible waste of our time. and i urge my colleagues to reject it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california reserves the balance of her time. ms. eshoo: does the gentlewoman have speakers? mrs. blackburn: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. and i want to clear up what i think is probably a couple of misunderstandings that my colleagues have across the aisle. one of the things i think it's important for everyone in this chamber to realize, and i know some are -- want to make fun of the fact that we are here talking about $100 million, $92

million, $67 million, different funding that goes in and through n.p.r. mr. speaker, every single penny that comes from the taxpayer is important, and every single penny that we appropriate comes from those taxpayers, and we are charged with being good stewards of that money. changing the structure in which n.p.r. does their business. as mr. lamborn said, looking at this business model this is a step we can take to save those taxpayer dollars. this is a step that is going to change that business model and free n.p.r. now, contrary to what some across the aisle are saying, this doesn't take n.p.r. off the air. what this does is to say,

n.p.r., you got to get out of the taxpayers' pocket because the taxpayer is not going to allow those taxpayer dollars to be sent to pay those n.p.r. dues and to buy that n.p.r. programming. now, another misconception that seems to be out there is about jobs. and saying that programming is going to be denied because these stations won't be able to use taxpayer money to acquire some of this government n.p.r. programming. let me tell you, what we're doing is empowering these local radio stations, and i hope, mr. speaker, that our colleagues understand this. we are turning to these local affiliates and saying, look, there are still going to be grants out there. you can create your own programming. this is a great jobs program for these local radio stations. this is telling them you don't

have to buy programming you don't want and that your listeners don't really want to listen to. we are saying, get creative. get that american spirit back to work, just like mr. crawford was talking about, find a niche in your marketplace and create a program. you want to talk about the jobs that are created? every time you create a new radio show you've got a writer, an editor, a producer, a sound engineer, assistant engineer. you have postproduction to take place. you got a host. you got a call screener. you got a board operator. you got a research assistant working with that writer and working with that editor. you've got a sales and marketing teamworking. you've got advertisers that are looking. of course, n.p.r. call them sponsors. you have affiliate relation teams working and you have attorneys who are working on the intellectual property to make sure they protect that

content. so i would just encourage my colleagues across the aisle to remember this is about freeing up those local radio stations. it is about getting n.p.r. out of the taxpayer pocket. it is making certain that we are good stewards of the taxpayer money, and i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: i would just like to add something here. that is that one of the mantras of our friends on the other side of the aisle was, read the bill. if the gentlewoman from tennessee would read the bill, she would know that there's not one dime, not one cent that is saved in this bill. what this bill does, you can talk all you want about how much you love n.p.r., what you are doing is killing off the local station from being able to have the money to buy n.p.r.'s programming. so you are hurting local

broadcastsing. i now would like to call on the distinguished woman from california from the santa barbara area, valued member of the committee, congresswoman lois capps. the speaker pro tempore: for how long? ms. eshoo: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: i thank the ranking member of the committee. mr. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to this effort to defund public radio. right now millions of americans tune in to n.p.r. stations across the country for one reason. the consistency of the high quality of its programming. in a world awash by off ill informed and sensationalist cable news and ever louder voices, public broadcasting provides thoughtful, evenhanded analysis of the issues of the day. and they do it every day. the bill before us seeks to end that. it is nothing more than an effort to cripple n.p.r. by crippling our local public radio

stations. the bill would decimate local n.p.r. stations by restricting their ability to choose programming best suited to their community. in my district n.p.r. stations provide valuable international and domestic news. they bring all things considered, "morning edition" and "car talk" into our cars and living rooms. these stations also cover local news, concerts, and school events. they produce shows like "yours on the arts," "community calendar." the bill throws all that out of the window. n.p.r. reports and media coverage are consistency evenhanded driven by a high standard of journalistic ethics. they are not politically biased. they let the stories do the talking. apparently the public, tax paying public, likes that. according for the project in excellence and journalism, in the last year the television network audience slipped 3 1/2 minutes. newspapers down 5%.

radio fell 6%. magazines down 9%. n.p.r.? up %. since 000, n.p.r. audience is up 58%. 5.7 million unique monthly visitors to the website, up more than five million. this is a reflection of the quality of its program and dedication to its mission. public broadcasting helps educate our society, celebrates the arts, education, respectful debate, and civil discourse. n.p.r. and the 900-plus local stations are a valuable resource for our country. i urge my colleagues to stand up for public broadcasting and oppose this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to take just a moment and since the previous speaker talked a little bit about n.p.r. and its listening audience. i would like to make certain that the record reflects a

little bit about that listening audience. we know that more men than women listen to n.p.r. except for the classical music which is 48% female. baby boomers are a big part of their audience. we also know that n.p.r., according to their website, says that their audience is extraordinarily well educated, nearly 65% of all listeners have a bachelor's degree, compared to only a quarter of the u.s. population. we also know that they are wealthy listeners, mr. speaker. n.p.r. households tend to be more affluent than other households primarily as a result of their educational retainment. the medium household income of an n.p.r. news listener is about 86 -- $86,000, compared to the national average of about $55,000. we also know that when it comes to geography, more than 99% of the u.s. population has access

to at least one n.p.r. station. when it comes to employment the majority of n.p.r. listeners, 63%, are employed full-time. mr. speaker, again i repeat the point. the object of this today is to get n.p.r. out of the taxpayers' pocket. it is time for us to do this. it is time for this structure to be changed. it is time for us to be good stewards and save the money of the american taxpayer. this is another step toward that goal. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'd now like to recognize for two minutes congresswoman tammy baldwin from wisconsin, a valued member of the committee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. baldwin: i thank the gentlelady. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to this bill which prohibits federal funding of national public radio. and the use of federal funds to acquire radio content. i'm incredibly disappointed in my republican colleagues for this needless attempt to cripple n.p.r. and threaten thousands of jobs in the public broadcasting community. without so much as a single hearing on the subject, this bill dissolves a vital public radio system dependent upon by millions of americans across the country. 27 million americans listen to n.p.r. each week. and back home in wisconsin nearly 450,000 people listen to wisconsin public radio weekly. over a three statewide network. in addition, 2.3 million visitors visited the wisconsin public radio website in 2010. those who listen to wisconsin

public radio know how much there is to love. wisconsin public radio provides over nine hours each week day of interactive radio programming engaging wisconsin residents and experts from around the world in public policy, culture, arts, and educational discussions. and because wisconsin is largely a rural state, our citizens rely on over-the-air broadcasting more than almost any other state. this means that wisconsin audiences significantly rely on public radio. not only would this horrible bill rushed before us today cripple local radio stations and programming that we enjoy in wisconsin, it severely harms listeners access to national shows like morning edition, all things considered, this american life, a prairie home companion, and one of my personal favorites, what do you know,

among many others. mr. speaker, the republican majority is clearly not interested in creating jobs or dealing seriously with the deficit. despite all of the talk, we are here today considering legislation that attacks public radio. i strongly oppose this bill and i strongly urge all of my colleagues to do so, too. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady from tennessee for yielding time. i come to the floor to rise in support of this bill. in that the -- the federal government has a few constitutional duties, and we seem to have taken on a lot of federal responsibilities. and as time goes on, every time

we see a need, we think we have to tap into the taxpayers and create another government function. but this is not one of those functions that is an enumerated power of the united states congress. it is not something that we are compelled to do. it is something that we -- it is discretionary. we are in the operations of a time of austerity. a time when we see what's happened as a prelude to the american economy if we just look over to europe and places like, portugal, ireland, italy, greece, spain for example. that's the direction we are heading with our economy. and as we see this discretionary spending grow, along with our entitlements grow, and our economy contract, we also need to look at these items that are -- at our discretion as to whether or not to fund. and i think that the image that we have seen on the videos tells us something about the internal culture of n.p.r. and if you haven't seen the videos or if you have just seen

a little text in there, that doesn't give you the real sense of what was going on in that conversation with mr. schiller at that table for two hours that day. if you look at the whole video, you'll see the cast and character and the content reflected the culture of n.p.r. in the same way in my view that the videos of acorn reflected accurately the actual internal culture of acorn. we shut off the funding to acorn for that reason. of all the data we put out on acorn, you couldn't be convinced to shut off the funding until you saw the reality of the video, and then we looked into planned parenthood, of all the data that was brought out here to the floor of the house, mr. speaker, and i compliment my friends for doing so, and all those who stood with him, still the american people didn't understand the real culture of planned parenthood until they saw the video. .

of all the data we have seen, we still have not absorbed the real culture of n.p.r. until we saw the video of those two hours that day. and so i stand in support of this act and this resolution and i believe it's time for us to draw a line in our budget and cut this funding. i'll be voting to adopt the cutting of the funding as will my colleagues. i thank you very much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from tennessee reserves the balance of her time of the the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: may i inquire how much time we have left on our side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california has 13 minutes remaining. the gentlelady from tennessee has 11 minutes. ms. eshoo: thank you. i now would like to call upon congressman ed markey. who i think possesses the broadest and deepest knowledge of telecommunications in the congress. the speaker pro tempore: how much time? ms. eshoo: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

mr. markey: i thank the gentlelady. in an era when edwardian drama is the only way to characterize the way in which cable news deals with the public affairs of our country, there is an owe kaycies of real news that begins with "morning edition" goes right through the day to "all things considered" which focuses on that most unusual of all subjects, hard news. that the american people can use to make judgments about the affairs of our country and the affairs of the world. it's an owe kaycies of information -- owe waycies -- oasis of information. "on point," other programs that raise the cultural level but serve as a place where people, 170 million americans, can go to get real information.

now, what is this debate all about? it's really about an ancient an mossity which the republican -- animosity which the republican party has had to the very creation of n.p.r., through newt gingrich, through the early years of the 21st century, right up to today, where it's on a list of grievances which they have about this ability of n.p.r. to provide this news and information. that's what the debate's about. it's not -- you don't have to be dick tracy to figure out what this debate is all about. they have right from the very beginning of the creation of this network wanted to destroy it. and i think that they are going to run into a razor blade sharp edge reaction from the american

public as they find that in place of "morning edition" and "car talk" and "all things considered" they want to move to radio silence. when the american people find out about that, they are going to be outraged. i would vote no and urge strongly a no vote for all members of this body. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i want address one thing. if this is not an ancient animosity -- i don't think i'm quite that old and i don't think you have to be dick tracy to figure out what this debate is about. it's about saving taxpayer money. we do not have a revenue problem in this town. we have a spending problem in this town. the federal government does not have the money to fund these programs.

we are borrowing 42 cents out of every single dollar that we spend. we have to get the spending under control. we have to create an environment where the american people can get back to work, and we're talking about funding for n.p.r. i just gave the demographic. it is a wealthy, educated listening audience. if people want this programming, mr. speaker, they are going to be willing to pay for it. but the american taxpayer has said get n.p.r. out of our pocket. now, i pulled the sponsors for n.p.r., and i think my colleagues would be interested in this. when you go to the n.p.r. website and you start pulling the sponsors -- they don't sell advertising but they do have many sponsors. they have some sponsors that land in the $1 million-plus category. $1 million-plus.

and then they list sponsors all the way down to $5,999. this is how wealthy the sponsorship base and the subscribership base is for them. it is time for us to remove the federal support system that they have relied on. they have told us they do not need the money. we need to cut the umbilical chord. we need to see what n.p.r. can do on their own and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: i yield two minutes to the dean of the house, mr. dingell from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. dingell: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dingell: i thank the

gentlelady from california for yielding me this time and i commend her for opposing this legislation. i rise in strenuous opposition to h.r. 1076. hastened to the floor in defiance of the commitments of the speaker and without any hearings or consideration by the committee on energy and commerce. no opportunity for the public to speak or be heard on what we're doing. the majority continues to force members of this body to waste time and energy of the house, a critical asset of this nation, on political witch-hunts with respect to health care and the environment. now we're adding public broadcasting to this list. public broadcasting is a national treasure. it provides us impartial, honest coverage of facts and news. it provides information not available elsewhere and, yes, it sheds a little bit of culture on our people, something that my republican colleagues find offensive.

it has done so at very low cost to the public. with huge contributions from the people for the support of -- in support of this. this legislation is going to prohibit local stations like michigan radio in ann arbor and in your own districts and in your states from using public -- from using money from corporation of public broadcasting from producing any public radio programs. as regards to process, we are completely evading the processes and the commitments that are -- can be found in the rules and pronouncements of the leadership on the other side. and we are finally -- finding that the history of this, which goes back to the 1934 communications act in the commerce committee has been grossly disregarded. some for regular order and so much for transparency that the

majority made such a big fuss about at the beginning of this year. what's next? are we going to amend the endangered species act on the floor to declare an open season on the big bird or upon programs which educate our kids or which contribute to the advancement of our society? i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 1076. it's a bad bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, who is the chairman of the house caucus on public broadcasting. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: i thank the gentlelady. i want to make five basic points. number one, there are no savings to the taxpayer in this bill. it simply passes on higher costs and fewer choices to

local stations. second, it's not going to stop n.p.r., which will go on in new york and los angeles and even portland, oregon. what it will cripple is what happens in smaller local stations around the country who rely on n.p.r. and other public broadcasting entities for their content. my good friend from tennessee just went through all the steps that are necessary to produce local content. that's complex and it's expensive. that's why they voluntarily buy "morning edition" or "prairie home companion" or "car talk." n.p.r. never said it didn't need the money. they're relying on a discredited video that was exposed by glen beck's website of all places. our friends should talk to the thousands of volunteers at home who rely upon public

broadcasting resources to provide the content that americans love. reject this travesty. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. in response to this there are no savings, and may i point my colleague to a report on the corporation for public broadcasting, federal funding and issues. and i will be happy to submit this for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. and reading from that n.p.r., incorporated which oversees the n.p.r. systems states that n.p.r. receives direct funding in the range of $1.5 million to $3 million from three federal agencies and the corporation for public broadcastinging. those are the national endoufment for the arts, department of commerce's -- endowment for the arts, department of commerce's

department of public education. now, mr. speaker, what we're saying is you can't do that anymore. this is one of the steps that we have to take in order to straighten out this budgeting process. our country does not have the money to spend on this. n.p.r. does not need the money. they will not be able to get these grants. we will save those dollars. the american taxpayer has said, get your fiscal house in order. this is a step in that process. i know they don't like it, but you know what, this is something we can do. this is something we will do. this is something the american people want to make certain that we do so that we get this nation back on a firm, fiscal and sound fiscal policy. the day has come that the out-of-control federal spending has to stop. a good place to start is by

taking n.p.r. out of the taxpayer pocket, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentlelady from california. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1076, to defund national public radio. overwhelming rhode island constituents agree this legislation is no more than an ideological attack on public broadcasting. mass can raiding as a fiscal issue. -- masquerading as a fiscal issue. it is .003% of the national budget. this legislation will not reduce the deficit by a single penny. without as much of a hearing, this legislation undermines public broadcasting, assisting 3,400 americans turn to weekly

and americans across the mittcal spectrum place high trust. these funding restrictions will devastate public radio, the economy of the public radio, it will harm local stations, it will inhibit their ability to get audiences, most importantly, their ability to continue to produce local programming. national public radio gives voice to the smallest communities in our country. i know the high quality that n.p.r. provides in rhode island and all across this country. it would also endanger 9,000 jobs at local public radio stations in communities across the country. i urge my colleagues to vote against this assault on the free exchange of ideas and instead support a democracy that continues to listen carefully to its people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. the gentlelady from california is recognized.

ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield a minute to the gentlewoman from new york, congresswoman nita lowey, who is one of the great advocates of public broadcasting in the congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. lowey: i thank the gentlelady. and, mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition. 170 million americans use public media for vital news. 61% of voters who support deficit reduction also support funding for public broadcasting. yet, the assault on public broadcasting continues. when jobs and the economy should be our top priority. this outrageous bill would prohibit public radio stations from using funds from using any radio programming from any outside source. that means that your local radio stations may not be able to air quality programming. we were not sent here to

silence "prairie home companion," "car talk." let's try to stop putting diane ream out of work and try to focus putting more americans back to work. reject this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee reserves. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield a minute to the distinguished gentleman from connecticut, mr. larson, the chairman of the house democratic caucus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. larson: i thank the gentlewoman and wish her a happy st. patrick's day. mr. speaker, there's a pattern here. americans are seeing through what it amounts to an ideological purge. in wisconsin, under the guise of dealing with the deficit, they're taking away collective bargaining rights. in washington under the guise of dealing with the deficit

they are cutting planned parenthood and taking away women's rights. under the guise of dealing with the deficit, they are planning to privatize social security and voucher medicare as if they had anything to do with causing the deficit and the problem we're in. and under the guise of saving taxpayers dollars, what they're doing is silencing n.p.r., not because it saves money but because it is not on the same ideological freak wednesdayy of the extreme -- free against -- frequency of the extreme right. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: i yield to ms. woolsey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. woolsey: the reaction to the plan is so be it. the reaction to an immoral afghanistan withdrawal is a shrug. but defunding national free programming, now, that's a national crisis. i figure they think if they can't catch bin laden then they ought to go after "prairie home companion." n.p.r. provides a vital function in a democracy. it's also twice as popular as the afghanistan war. and it supports 21,000 jobs. that's 21,000 jobs more than the republican agenda would create. vote against h.r. 1076. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california reserves. mrs. blackburn: reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee reserves. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. doggett: while republicans insist today that n.p.r. is a four-letter word, the real attack is on k.u.t. and similar public radio. texans rely on kut. the only biased on those who begin with "morning edition" is a biased for truth. my constituents turn to kut because they want fact-based, not fox-based coverage. like their continued assault on pbs, these republicans just can't tell the difference between big government and big bird. while they pander to wall street, they continue to want to terminate support on "sesame street." all things considered, their

attack really has nothing to do with balancing the budget it is an ideological crusade against balanced news and educational programs. cutting access to public knowledge decreases our ability to hold our government accountable. don't weaken our democracy by weakening this vital source of reality-based journalism. don't cut kut, public radio serves the public's interest. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: at this time i yield one minute to one of our freshmen members from the florida pan handle, mr. southerland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. southerland: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. susterland: -- mr. susterland: we talk about big bird and that sounds wonderful. we had a couple of big bird in my family. we have four small children and they love big bird. i'll tell you this when the

c.e.o. of "sesame street" is compensated, $956,000 in 2008 compensation, that's over double what the leader of the free world makes. think about that. $46,000 -- $956,000, when in the same year "sesame street" received $211 million in toy and consumer product sails. so -- sales. to stand here and say we have the luxury at this incredibly critical crisis moment in our deficit struggles that we have the luxury, the luxury of making sure that pbs can pay $632,000 in salary and the corporation for public broadcasting can pay its president and c.e.o., $300,000 a piece, i mean, really. are we serious? are we serious? we can do better. we must do better.

madam chair, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california has three minutes remaining. the gentlelady from tennessee has six minutes remaining. ms. eshoo: did you say three minutes? the speaker pro tempore: correct. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman, great irishman, from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: mr. speaker, national public radio has the strongest intellectual artistic and informational in-depth content of any radio network in this country. because its content is not compromised by corporate ownership. i love it, but i won't lose it. it's the rural stations that depend on n.p.r. for half their budget. they can't afford to lose this national asset, nor can the 36 million people who rely on emergency alerts from n.p.r. in times of crisis. the commercial market won't do that because there's no profit in it. nor can the visually and hearing

impaired afford to lose the technology n.p.r. developed. this has nothing to do with the deficit. it's a fraction of our national debt. it jeopardizes 9,000 jobs and distracts us from solving the real problems that this nation faces by trying to destroy one of the primary sources of an entight lened -- enlightened electorate. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. you know i think that this is one of those things that's what did he -- that's kind of what's wrong around here. don't do this, that's not much money. that's not much money. you know what, mr. speaker? it all adds up. and the american people have had it with the federal government spending money they do not have. with that i want to yield one minute to a wonderful new member who has joined us from dunn,

north carolina, miss ehlers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. ellmers: this legislation would simply prohibit direct federal funds, taxpayer money, from being made available to the national public radio, or as we know it, n.p.r. and would prohibit public radio stations from using federal funds to pay for their n.p.r. dues. the bill would also prohibit public radio stations from using federal funds for the production or acquisition of programming. i want to be very clear. i am in support of the arts. however i do not believe that n.p.r. has the right to public funds from our hard-earned taxpayer dollars. when they receive plenty of funding from private sources. these prohibitions would not affect a local radio station's ability to use the federal funding for their operations or for the production of their own programming.

n.p.r. already receives direct federal funding through the corporation of public broadcasting. the department of education, department of commerce, and the national endowment for the arts. they also get a considerable amount of money from local radio stations. why do they need more? thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: i would like to inquire how much time we have left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california has two minutes remaining. the gentlelady from tennessee has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. eshoo: how many speakers does the gentlelady from tennessee still have? mrs. blackburn: mr. speaker, once they finish their speakers, then i will close for our side. ms. eshoo: how many speakers do you have? mrs. blackburn: once they finish with their speakers ail -- i'll be ready to close. ms. eshoo: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: i believe the gentlelady from

tennessee is prepared to close. so the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: i yield one minute to the gentleman, the brilliant, brilliant gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. the speaker pro tempore: for how long? ms. eshoo: one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. holt: i thank the gentlelady. n.p.r. provides news and cultural enrichment. yes, enrichment that adds value to the lives of millions of americans. and it reaches into all parts of our country. even into that fact-free universe where the other side seems to be living saying that factual information is somehow a liberal thai ass. you know -- bias. we talk about the need for a well-informed public. just this morning we had a reminder of the benefits that n.p.r. brings to america. today there was a news report on the slow progress the u.s. army is making towards seeing that

wounded soldiers get the purple hearts they deserve. the army's second in command remarked in this story that it was previous reporting by n.p.r. that was removing the confusion and misunderstanding that had prevented the serving soldiers from getting the purple heart recognition. this is good reporting. the other side seems to think that this is -- wait, wait, don't tell me. biased reporting. we need n.p.r. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. has one minute remaining. ms. eshoo: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlelady from tennessee prepared to close? mrs. blackburn: mr. speaker, once they have finished with all of their speakers, i will have the right to close on the bill. i continue to reserve our time until such time as they have exhausted their speakers. the speaker pro tempore: that is correct. the gentlelady from california has one minute remaining. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'm

pleased to yield one minute to the the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, a study conducted by the center for international and security studies found that those who said they received most of their news from n.p.r. were only about 1/4 as likely to hold a demonstrably false belief about important issues relating to the iraq war, as those who primarily consume news from our colleagues' favorite news channels. a similar study conducted last year on mainly economic issues produced similar results. those who primarily listened to n.p.r. were considerably less likely to hold demonstrably false beliefs. so now our colleagues across the aisle want to pull the plug on

n.p.r. one of the most accurate sources of demonstrably true news and information. our colleagues want to fire the messenger. this is not a move to create jobs or save money. this is a move to save face. at the expense of truth. and i believe that such a move comes at a price that we simply cannot afford to pay. this country needs n.p.r. vote against the republican bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the balance of our time. i do think that our colleagues across the aisle are missing the points on this. we are responsible for making certain that this fiscal house gets in order.

this is just another of those attempts. this is not about taking n.p.r. off the air. there's nothing here that says you will take n.p.r. off the air. what it simply says is if you are an affiliate station and you want to pay n.p.r. dues, you can't use taxpayer dollars. if you want to buy n.p.r. programming, you cannot use taxpayer dollars for that. the taxpayers want n.p.r. out of their pocket. now, there is plenty of popular programming out there, and if the listeners want to hear that, we are not trying to disenfranchise those listeners. indeed if listeners like the n.p.r., they can have -- that they have, they can keep it. but what we are saying is they need to raise the money for this. we went through the demographics for n.p.r. college educated 63% have full-time jobs. their average household income is upwards of $86,000 a year.

they have a list of sponsors that give over $1 million a year to n.p.r. n.p.r. itself has said they do not need our taxpayer funding. so this is a place that we can go and save some money. to those that say it is a job killing program, may i remind you indeed to develop local programming, i articulated 17 different positions attached to creating even one radio show. and unlike some of my colleagues, mr. speaker, i fully believe there are talented people, talented writers an editors and programmers all across this great nation who would love to have a platform for the great ideas and the content that they would like to create. i want to encourage all of my colleagues to take a step in the right direction in getting our fiscal house in order. the time has come for us to claw back this money.

the time has come for us to send a message. we need to get n.p.r. out of the taxpayers' pocket. i encourage a yes vote on h.r. 1076. and i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yield back the balance of her time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 174, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the measure will be read for the third time. the clerk: a bill to prohibit federal funding of national public radio and the use of federal funds to acquire radio content. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. sutton: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlelady opposed to the bill? ms. sutton: i am.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. sutton of ohio moves to recommit the bill h.r. 1076 to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. page 2, after line 24, insert the following, three, amber alerts. notwithstanding any other provision of this act, nothing in this act shall limit the eligibility of an organization described in subsection a-1 or an entity to makes a payment described in subsection a-2 to receive federal funds to broadcast other otherwise disseminate alerts issued by the amber alert system regarding abducted children. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. ms. sutton: thank you, mr. speaker. my colleagues, there are many times when we come to this floor and engage in heated debate and we have heard some heated debate on the bill before us.

but in this moment, mr. speaker, my amendment offers us the opportunity to come together and do something extraordinarily important and that is to protect our children. mr. speaker, i happen to oppose the underlying bill, but regardless of how one feels about the underlying legislation, this amendment is something upon which we can all agree. . nothing is more precious, more valuable than our children and when a child goes missing in the community no one asks if he or she is a republican or a democrat. we simply ask, how can we help find the child and return them safely home? when the unthinkable happens, we all seek in common purpose to do all that we can to ensure a successful outcome. and it is in pursuit of that successful outcome that this

amendment is offered today. this amendment will ensure that when a child goes missing every resource available to find that child and to return him or her to safety will be utilized including n.p.r.'s satellite. we all know that when a child is abducted a rapid and coordinated response can make a life and death difference. and this amendment will make sure that we do not undermine the amber alert system that has been effectively used to recover missing children. the amber alert system was created after amber haguerman, a 9-year-old girl from arlington, texas, was abducted while riding her bicycle and then brutally murdered in 1996. her kipping and murder still remain unsolved. amber's tragic story led to a partnership between broadcasters and police to develop an early warning system

to help find abducted system. it stands for america's missing broadcasting emergency response. the amber alert program began as a local effort in texas and has since grown into a successful national program saving hundreds of lives of children. today, all 50 states, the district of columbia, puerto rico and the u.s. virgin islands all have amber alert plans. the amber alert program instantly galvanizes the entire community to assist in the research for and the safe recovery of an abducted child. since its inception, the amber alert has been able to successfully recover 538 children nationwide. mr. speaker, we go to great lengths to protect our children from sexual predators and abductors. and rightfully so. we talk to them about keeping themselves safe. we teach them how to recognize

and avoid dangerous situations, and we talk to them about making smart decisions. today we have the chance to make a decision to ensure that regardless of how we feel about the underlying bill we will not undermine the effectiveness of our amber alert network system. n.p.r.'s designated as a disseminator of amber alerts via arrangements with the department of justice and the national center for exploited children. alert systems is in progress and n.p.r. is positioned to play a vital, necessary role with its satellite-based capability. recklessly eliminated funding critical to the effective functioning of the amber alert system would be a tragic mistake. children of every age, gender and race are vulnerable to child abduction. and when it happens, time is

the enemy. communities must mobilize quickly. the widespread use of amber alert network is the nation's most powerful tool for bringing abducted children home. amber alerts also serve as deterrents to those who would prey upon our children. amber alert cases demonstrate that some perpetrators release the abducted child after hearing the amber alert on the radio or seeing it on television. from my hometown of coply, ohio, a 1-year-old little girl was taken by her father after a domestic fight grew violent. the father, known to have a drug problem, took the young girl from her home and drove erratically off with her in a girl. an amber alert was issued and because of the continued press coverage, the man made the decision to return his daughter and thankfully she was brought to safety. and let's be clear. passage of this amendment will not prevent passage of the

underlying bill. if the amendment is adopted it will be incorporated into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted upon. so though we may disagree on the bill, today we have the opportunity to speak with one voice, to protect our children. it is up to us. i urge everyone to vote yes on this vital amendment. the speaker pro tempore: who claims time in opposition to the motion to recommit? mrs. blackburn: yes, i blame time -- i claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. blackburn: our chirp and our grandchildren are an in-- our children and our grandchildren are an incredibly important part of our lives. protecting -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order.

the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. we all agree that it's important that we put this nation on a firm fiscal footing. now, while we all support, support the amber alert program, there's nothing in there that would prevent the apple bert alert program. we all know that this is a procedural move by the minority to try to derail the funding to n.p.r. as i said as we talked about the bill, it is imperative that we be good stewards of the taxpayers' money, that we get the house in fiscal order. it's time to get n.p.r. out of the taxpayers' pocket, the underlying bill does that. i encourage a no vote on the motion to recommit. i encourage an aye vote on 1076, and i yield back the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. ms. sutton: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady ask for the yeas and nays? ms. sutton: yes, the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit h.r. 1076 will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of h.r. 1076, if ordered, and the gentlelady has asked for a

recorded vote. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the

national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 228, the nays are 192, with one answering present. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the adoption of house concurrent resolution 28 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 28, concurrent resolution directing the president, pursuant to section 5c of the war powers resolution to remove the united states armed forces from afghanistan. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the adoption of

the concurrent resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 93 and the nays are 321 with one answering present. the concurrent resolution is not agreed to. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the chair will entertain the request for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the

gentleman from new jersey rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to commemorate brain awareness week and to highlight the progress scientists are making to better understand the brain and brain-based illness that impact million it's of americans -- millions of americans. such illnesses include autism and a disease that affects my family personally, alzheimer's disease. during brain awareness week, scientists work to educate students and the public about the work that they do to unravel the mysteries of the brain and how their work can result in treatments for many brain-related illnesses. mr. speaker, i'm pleased that during this upcoming constituent workweek i will join students

from shawnee high school as they recognize brain awareness week during their sixth annual brain day. i applaud the students at shawnee high school, along with scientists engaged in this important work. mr. runyan: their hard work is key to finding future treatments that we need desperately. second, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas -- ms. jackson lee: address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, thank you very much. while we are here in the united states and i am privileged and honored that we are comforted by our flag, our values and the fact that we can live in peace and security, mr. speaker, there are those who are fighting for freedom all over the world but in this instance in the mideast

and they are dying as we speak. we have the uprising in egypt and yemen and bahrain. bahrain is moving people out of the streets. but then you move to libya and people are dying. today i stood with a mother who lives in the united states and her libyan american son was born here is lost in libya. at first she thought he was dead but she is looking to see whether or not there is news that was only wounded. even so, he was not in battle, he was providing food to those who needed the food and yet he was brought down. it is important that we not enter a war but that we create with our allies a no-fly zone otherwise gaddafi is going to slaughter the people of libya. where's our heart, where's our compassion? as we seek to bring our heroic soldiers home from afghanistan who fought for peace and freedom, let us not forget those who stand unarmed almost in their civilian clothes fighting against tyranny.

we must have a no-fly zone. we cannot tolerate the slaughter. we must stand for peace. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, it has been said that first carkt of war is the truth. in war the way information reaches the people is through the messagers of truth, a free and independent press. one way to hide the truth in gaddafi's war is for the dictator to prohibit the media from finding out the facts, finding out the truth. so it should come as no surprise that four "new york times" journalists covering the war have disappeared in libya. presumably captured by omar's troops. they are anthony shadid, steven ferrel, tyler hicks and lindsay oderro. all veteran journalists and

photographers. more than 300 other journalists have been attacked during the recent turmoil in the region and four have been killed. last year 57 journalists were murdered worldwide. journalists are the eyes and ears for the world. so when they are assaulted, kidnapped, harassed, senttured or murdered by dictators, those actions are a direct attack on truth and human freedom. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? from new york. sorry. without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to call for a no-fly zone in libya. i don't think that the united states should do it ourselves but i think with our european allies, the european union and the arab league, we should do it.

mr. engel: the arab league called for a no-fly zone so it certainly would not be interpreted and if we were doing something unilaterally. but i would like to take it one step further. we have been selling to our arab allies multiple planes and weapons for years and years and years. and i certainly think if there was a no-fly zone the arab nations would call on us to support a no-fly zone or to participate with us in terms of making sure that no-fly zone is sustainable. we cannot sit by and allow gaddafi to kill more and more innocent people in a blood bath, to use the power, air power of his force to massacre civilians. we cannot allow that and so i think the time is now. we can't keep waiting because if we wait it will be too long and the blood bath will have already occurred. i think the time for action is now. let's do it in conjunction with

the e.u. and the arab league and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed h.j.res. 48 making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? without objection, mr. kucinich, if that would be already, let him speak for one -- >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm standing here opposing the action taken by this house today and urging the senate to allow the valued listeners of metro detroit's wdet to hear the best quality national programming and here's why. what happens around the world impacts the quality of life of people living in metro detroit and the valued listeners of detroit's wdet deserve to hear

this news and this programming. ms. clarke: i yield back. -- mr. clarke: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. kucinich from ohio. would you like to proceed? mr. kucinich: thank you very much, mr. speaker. march the 20th, 2003, eight years ago, the united states launched a full scale attack on iraq. many of us remember watching the images of shock and awe as violence was wreaked against the people of iraq and in particular the city of baghdad. now that moment at which america

arrived to express its military might had ant seed ants that we should study this evening. i want to review, mr. speaker, the climate that was created for this congress that caused this congress to make a decision back in october of 2002 to go to war against iraq, a war that was executed beginning march 20, 2003. it was nine years ago to this day that vice president cheney said the following of iraq, we know they have biological and chemical weapons. march 17, 2002.

on march 19, 2002, the vice president cheney said, and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons. on march 24, 2002, vice president cheney said of saddam hussein, he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time. later on, may 19, 2002, we know he's got chemicals and biological and we know he's working on nuclear. that was vice president cheney on "meet the press." august 26, 2002, speaking to the v.f.w.'s convention, vice president cheney said, simply stated there is no doubt that saddam hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us. september 8, 2002, again, on abc's -- strike that, on nbc's "meet the press," vice president cheney said this, based on intelligence that's becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed, and he's speaking of saddam hussein, he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts

under way inside iraq to significantly expand his capability. on september 8, 2002, on "meet the press," the vice president cheney went on to say of hussein, he is in fact actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. march 16, 2003, a few days before the attack, and we believe he has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons. i mention this, mr. speaker, because for those members who are not in the house of representatives at the time of the october debate and at the time that the attack commenced,

and for those who are just citizens, watching these events unfold, there was created in this country a climate of belief, a certainty, as to the grave peril which saddam hussein of iraq was alleged to represent. that was the vice president. now the president, in various appearances and statements and in the legislation he presented to this congress, the president made the following material representations with respect to iraq. he said that iraq was continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons

capability. he said that iraq was actively seek agnew clear weapons capability. that iraq was continuing to threaten the national security interests of the united states, and international peace and security. that iraq had demonstrated a willingness to attack the united states. that members of al qaeda, an international organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the united states, its citizens and interest, including the attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001, are known to be in iraq. that attacks on the united states on september 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat that iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations. president george w. bush represented to this congress that iraq will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the united states or its armed forces or provide them to

international terrorists who will do so. that an extreme magnitude of harm will result to the united states and its citizens from such an attack and that the aforementioned threats justified action by the united states to defend itself. mr. speaker, we have an obligation as a nation to defend ourselves. to provide for the common defense is one of the foundational principles of this country in the preamble to our constitution. those who are charged with the responsibility of guiding the affairs of our nation, the president and the vice president in this case, president bush and vice president cheney, had a

responsibility to be totally clear and honest with the american people. it is to their shame that they were neither honest nor candid with the american people and with this congress. here we are on the eighth anniversary of the attack on iraq. i think, mr. speaker, it would be instructive for this congress to have the opportunity to review what it is we were told. in early october of 2002, when we voted as a congress to authorize the president to take action against iraq, action which commenced eight years ago, listen to some of these claims that were made. what i'll do, i'll state the claims that were made and then

i'll rebut them. we were told that in 1990, in response to iraq's war of aggression against an illegal occupation of kuwait, the united states forged a coalition of nations to liberate kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the united states and enforce united nations security council resolutions relating to iraq. mr. speaker, the thing that was said then at that time in response, i pointed out that in the persian gulf war there was an international coalition, world support was for protecting kuwait. there was no world support for invading iraq. the resolution which president bush submitted to this congress which resulted in the invasion

of iraq eight years ago said, whereas after the liberation of kuwait in 1991, iraq entered into a united nations-sponsored cease fire agreement pursuant to which iraq unequivocally agreed to eliminate its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons aagreement and to end its support for international terrorism whereas the efforts of the international weapons inspectors and iraqi defectors led to the scoffry that iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program and that iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to produce agnew clear weapon than intelligence previously had indicated. i pointed out in the debate, in advance of any attack, to answer what the president was saying, i pointed out more than eight years ago, u.n.

inspection teams identified and destroyed nearly all such weapons that president bush referred to in his resolution. a lead inspector, scott ritter, said he believes that nearly all other weapons not found were destroyed in the gulf war. furthermore, according to a publish red port in "the washington post," the central intelligence -- published report in "the washington post," the c.i.a. had no active report on iraq's w.m.d. capabilities. the president said, whereas iraq in direct, flagrant violation of the cease fire attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and deconstruction -- destruction capabilities which resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from iraq on october 31, 1988. i -- 2008.

i pointed out, back then, iraqi deceptions always failed. the inspectors always figured out what iraq was doing. it was the united states that pulled out of iraq and then launched a cruise missile attack 48 hours later. in advance of a military strike, the u.s. continued to thwart the weapons inspections. president bush went on to tell this congress, whereas in 1998 congress concluded that iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction program threatened vital u.s. interests and international peace and security, declared iraq to be in, quote, material and unacceptable breech of its international obligations, end quote, and urged the president to take appropriate action in accordance with the constitution and relevant laws of the united states to bring iraq into compliance with international obligations. the president went on to assert

to this congress, whereas iraq both possesses a continuing threat to the national security of the united states and international peace and security in the persian gulf and remains in material and unacceptable breach of international obligations by among other things continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking nuclear weapons capability and supporting and harboring terrorists. it was pinted out back then, mr. speaker, that there was absolutely no proof that iraq represented an immediate or imminent threat to the united states, a continuing threat does not constitute a sufficient cause for war. the administration refused to provide congress with credible intelligence that proved that iraq was a serious threat to the united states and was

continuing to possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. and there was no credible intelligence connecting iraq to al qaeda and 9/11. iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11. the president went on to assert to this congress in a resolution which was a call to war against iraq that iraq persists in violating resolutions of the united nations security council by continuing to engage in further repression of its population, thereby threatening international peace and security in the region by refusing to release, pe re-pay trait or account for noniraqi citizens not accounted for by iraq. and by not returning servicemen seized from kuwait.

it was said at the time that the language of the resolution was so broad it would allow the president to attack iraq even when there was in material threat to the united states. the resolution authorized the use of force for iraq-related violations of u.n. security council directives and resolution cited iraq's imprisonment of noniraqi prisoners. this resolution would have authorized the president to attack iraq to liberate kuwaiti citizens even if iraq met all requests to destroy weapons of mass destruction. iraq and kuwait agreed to a bilateral negotiation to work out all claims including stolen property an prisoners of war this use of force resolution enabled president bush to commit u.s. troops to recover kuwait yie -- kuwaiti property.

the president told the congress, the current iraqi regime had demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people, that the iraqi regime demonstrated its continued hostility toward the united states including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former president bush and by firing on many occasions on u.s. and coalition armed forces engaged in enforcing the united nations security council. it was pointed out back then, prior to congress passing this -- the resolution to authorize an attack on iraq that the iraqi regime had never attacked nor does it have the capability to attack the united states. they couldn't attack us. the no-fly zone was not the result of a u.n. security council directive, it was illegally imposed by the united

states, great britain, and france and not specifically sanctioned by any security council resolution. the president went on to say members of al qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for the attack on the united states, its citizens and interest including the attacks that occurred on 9/11 are known to be in iraq. but back in october of 2002, when we were having the debate on president bush's warres. sugse, there was no credible intelligence that connected iraq to the events of 9/11 or to participation in those events by assisting al qaeda. the president told congress back in 2002, iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of american citizens.

it was pointed out back then in response to president bush's assertions that any connection between the iraq support of terrorist groups in the middle east is an argument and was an argument then for focusing great resources on resolving the conflict between israel and the palestinians. it was not sufficient reason for the u.s. to launch a unilateral, preevery -- preemptive strike against iraq. the president went on to say that the attacks on the united states of september 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by accusation of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorists -- terrorist organizations. it was pointed out again that the -- that there was no connection between iraq and the events of 9/11. but think about this. there was a consistent effort to try to link iraq to 9/11 and to al qaeda's role in 9/11.

but there was no connection. the president kept on insisting there was, as did the vice president. the president went on to say that iraq demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the iraq regime would either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the united states or its armed forces or provide them international terrorist who would do so, the extreme magnitude of harm that would result in the united states and its citizens from such an attack combine to justify action by the united states to defend itself. the picture that was painted for the american people for this congress or for the congress at that time was that we had no choice but to get

ready to attack iraq. and yet back then, prior to congress voting on a resolution to authorize the use of military force against iraq, the attack having occurred eight years ago on march 20, 2003. yet, we knew back then that there was no credible evidence that iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. there was no credible evidence that iraq had the capability to reach the united states with such weapons. in the 1991 gulf war iraq had a demonstrated capability of biological or chemical weapons

but didn't use them against the u.s. armed forces. congress was not provided with credible information which that iraq had provided international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. president bush went on to assert that the united states could unilaterally enforce u.n. resolutions. and that we could do so with military force. he went on to assert a chronolgy of international process. and when you look at where we are today, $3 trillion,

according to joseph, will be the minimum cost to this war. one has to ask, what was going on in this congress at the time when we were told by the president of the united states and by the vice president of the united states that iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that had the intention of attacking the united states, that iraq -- the implication that iraq worked with al qaeda to bring about 9/11, that's what they led this congress to believe. that's what they led the american people to believe. but you know what, mr. speaker

way back then i didn't buy a ward of it and there were other members of congress that didn't buy a word of it either. we knew there was no proof. we knew that there was no proof offered by the administration at that time. that would give us a cause to go to war against iraq, but we executed a war begins iraq. this is a great tragedy upon the iraqi people and upon the -- we executed a war against iraq that, according to joseph stiglitz, extrapalating a story , according to one million innocent iraqi people have died in that war.

i want everyone here to wrap -- wrap their thinking around this statement. joseph stiglitz in his book, "$3 trillion war," along with his assistant, cited a report on civilian casualties in iraq, extrapilated from that report, it comes up with approximately one million innocent civilians lost their lives as a result of the united states, attack upon an occupation of iraq. now, people will criticize the

study. they say, it can't be true. they look at how many excess deaths occurred during that period. and he did a really comprehensive study and they were able to come to this determination that these were deaths that should not have occurred or they attributed to that war. a million people. why? because this congress was told that iraq had weapons of mass destruction, was going to use them to -- against the united states of america. could i ask how much time is left, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: you have approximately 35 minutes remaining. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill.

the clerk: house joint resolution 48, joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. kucinich: so i was saying, mr. speaker, over a million innocent iraqis died pursuant to the blood, shed and chaos that occurred during the iraq war. how can anyone in public life who understands that not come into public forums and demand justice?

this nation was led to war based on lies. the u.s. has already lost 4,439 of our brave men and women. we have over 3,000 troops wounded. there are casualties on all sides here. and certainly some of the nations who with close ranks with the bush administration, their sons and daughters also suffered as well. it's hard to believe, though, that we could have known all that we knew in advance of passing the legislation and was passed anyway, know all that we

knew in advance of passing the legislation, the legislation's passed and we go to war anyway. know all that we know today back then and still be in iraq today, march 17, 2011. and i quoted to you at the beginning of this from vice president cheney nine years ago . the iraqis are still paying a price. and so are the american people. i am going to say something on this floor, mr. speaker, that seldom gets discussed here. and that is that i sincerely believe that president bush, vice president cheney, secretary rumsfeld and others

should be held accountable. under international law for waging a war against people who had no quarrel with the united states of america at all. there has to be international laws that have to be followed by u.s. officials, and in fact there are. the geneva conventions, the u.n. charter. there are expressed prohibitions against waging war. it's not what this congress blesses because of what we were told. the president and the vice president and secretary of defense, they all knew better. they are all trying to cover their tracks right now with

various books and p.r. tours, but they knew better. they put the lives of our young men and women on the line for a lie. they put the lives of a million and more iraqi people on the line for a lie. they put over $3 trillion of our precious resources here on the line for a lie. i challenge anyone in this congress to prove me wrong on any of this because it is impossible to prove to the contrary the statements that i've made today about assertions were made to this congress, to the american people for a cause of war against iraq and they were all

lies. and now, mr. speaker, we are about to begin another year of occupation of iraq. there is no question that occupation fuels insurgencies. there is no question that we are likely to be in iraq for some time to come. just in the last 24 hours, it was reported that whilil u.s. troops who are there at this moment, 50,000 troops, supposed to leave at the end of the year there's problems with negotiations. that mr. maliki, his government is stalled on appointing

ministers, that the u.s. wants a contingency force of 10,000 to remain, that the state department is increasing contractor presence of 17,000 at the cost of $2.5 billion. we're not going to be done with this war for god knows how long. we know the war in iraq is being privatized. we know that all these private firms that are lining up to provide security in iraq will be there for sometime. as a matter of fact, it's in their interest to keep the environment unstable because they'll keep making money. and so this handoff to the state department occurs with much skepticism, but at this

very moment, mr. speaker, it's not clear that we are truly going to leaving iraq. i mean, you're either in or out. you can't talk about going and you still have 10,000 troops there or 50,000 troops there. we're told it's the end of combat operations. well, you know, some of the insurgents aren't getting that message so they're still attacking our troops. 4,439 u.s. casualties, approximately 33,000 wounded. i've been to a number of funerals of young people who believe in this country -- who believed in this country, who love this country, who saw service to this country as the highest purpose of their lives.

i remember a number of them. i remember all of them but there's one in particular i want to share with you. it was a young man who when he died in combat his mother was notified that he would at last be made a u.s. citizen. i grew up at a time when we were dealing with the iraq war. and -- rather, the vietnam war. and years ago, before i got into politics, i was copy boy at a newspaper in cleveland called the "plain dealer." my job at the "plain dealer,"

among the things i had to do, i had to go out on what they called art runs to pick up pictures of young men, primarily, who were killed in vietnam. i remember driving the company's car up to the -- up to a house, mr. speaker, all these houses after a while, they look the same. houses were -- had wooden clapboard houses that needed a little bit of paint and the front door was flapping in the breeze, wasn't a latch on it and when you walked up the steps, the steps would creek and you'd see faded white

curtains in the window with a shade pulled down and a blue star in the window. signifying that they had someone who served. when i knocked on the door, people would invite me into their house and i'd sit on a worn sofa, threadbare rug, at that time thide have a picture of the president of the united states, often a picture of president kennedy who by then had been deceased. and a picture of christ on the -- in or around the tv. i'd sit down on the sofa and they'd go over the pictures that i'd take one of those pictures back to the newspaper so they could print it the next day to announce this young person had been killed. and i remember how incredible

it was to be there at that moment when the family was in such incredible agony and grief and to get the feeling of their loss, even thinking about it right now, i can feel it. and i went out and picked up so many pictures over the course of a year or so, just in that -- while i was doing that job. and it was just the same thing over and over again. people talking about how proud they were of their young person who served, and wanting everyone to know how much they love the country and how much they love service. those memories stay with me. all of us who had friends who fought in vietnam and didn't come back, you know, including people i played baseball with, people who i just used to pal around with. and when you know people who get killed in war, it becomes

personal. when you know family members who are out there and exposed to that environment, it's very personal. so when -- here i am in the united states congress, here we are, 2011, and i think back to those times and i think, you know, if we're sending these young men and women to put themselves in harm's way, we better be right, we better have -- we cannot afford, not just to not make a mistake but there can't be any deception involved in things like that. so you see, when i talk about the importance of holding people accountable for the deceptions, i come from a place of great sadness about the tragedy of war generally, but the compounded tragedy of war

specifically when it is based on something that is really not true. cowl i ask the speaker how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 2 more minutes remaining. -- has 22 more minutes remaining. mr. kucinich: whether those of us in congress voted for the war or not, we all have grave concerns for the safety of our troops but there's a sense in which the troops themselves become hostage to the war. we had so many moments when we

were told that we should vote to continue to fund the wars. to support the troops. now, iraq, march 20, 2011. the eighth anniversary. afghanistan, already the longest war in our history. more than 10 years. how can we afford the lives anymore? the lost lives. how cap we afford the deaths of innocent civilians? how can we afford the trillions upon trillions of dollars?

there's a point at which we have to ask ourselves some fundamental questions. if we didn't go to war to make america safer, why did we go to war against iraq? i maintained then and maintain now that oil certainly had something to do with it. we have to ask ourselves, why are we still in iraq? why are we still in afghanistan? why are we continuing the incursions along the pakistani border? why are we still debating whether to become involved militarily in libya? don't we as americans get to

the point where we just say maybe it's time we started taking care of things here at home first. 15 million americans out of work. think of how many jobs you could create with trillions of dollars. over 10 million americans have lost their homes. millions of americans without health care. so many americans go to bed hungry. so many americans can't afford to send their kids to a -- to decent schools. so much of our public education system is failing because they don't have enough resources. and yet we are spending trillions of dollars now on wars. one war based on lies, the other one based on a fundamental misreading of

history. who in history has conquered afghanistan? maybe somebody can go back to again dischan's time and -- to genghis khan's time and answer that we question, but you can't answer it in this century or the last semplery. the house had two hours of he date today on the issue of afghanistan and war powers resolution. i'm pleased to see that more voted in favor of withdrawal this year than voted last year. it's a good sign. particularly since about 2/3 of the american people favor getting out of afghanistan in the near future. i mean it's easy to understand why the american people feel that way. the american people have to be feel, how can we afford these wars? how can we afford to spend a million dollars today to equip

a soldier, strike that, a million dollars a year to equip a soldier in afghanistan or iraq for that matter. don't we have things to take care of here at home. i look at our cities and all across this nation we have cities that are falling apart. our infrastructure is falling apart. it's fair to say that we have trillions of dollars in infrastructure needs that are unmet. they're not being met because we're being hold, we don't have enough money. as a matter of fact, some states are using the deficit to crush workers' rights. we know when it comes to these war, these wars are contributing to the deficit. one way or another, we end up borrowing money to keep these wars going. how can these wars be more important than everything else in america. we know right now that

occupations fuel insurgency in afghanistan, our presence there has caused the taliban to become stronger. our actions there help ensure the taliban will have even more support. general petraeus himself with respect to afghanistan said, al qaeda doesn't have much of a presence there. what are we doing there? how can we keep affording the kind of money we're spending there? the american people are saying it loud and clear. they want out. but what i wanted to do this evening is to bring us back to the time that congress was faced with the decision about going to war against iraq. that we were told things by vice president cheney, we were told things by president bush.

now they want to blame it on some character called curveball, look when i was growing up if somebody was throwing you a curveball you knew what it meant. it wasn't coming at you straight, it was coming at you like this. it was like somebody in the c.i.a. was telegraphing to all of us, hey this guy is a curveball, be very careful about this pitch that he's making. but anyhow, this character curveball, when it comes to w.m.d.'s, he said he made it all up. said he had a problem with the saddam regime and wanted to get rid of them and had the chance. now there are those who would say, well, see, it was this guy. he said this. we were fooled. right, yeah. no. those charged with the responsibility of taking this country into war against iraq, they weren't fooled. they cooked the books.

with respect to the intelligence. they had the intelligence shaped to fit their preconceived designs to go to war. for them to try to maintain they were fooled would be an interesting defense. the former head of the c.i.a. in europe, tyler dramiller wasn't fooled he warned against the reliability of curveball but he bush administration offered no alternatives to congress. so instead of accepting the truth that iraq didn't possess w.m.d.'s, the bush administration decided to pick and choose their facts in order to sell a war to the american people. at a cost of trillions of dollars. when i think of the road that we have gone down, when i

think, mr. speaker, that someone in the bush administration way back when, we were about to attack iraq announce head thought the iraq war would cost $100 billion, alreadyry lindsay, he was fired for that. $100 -- larry lynn cey. he was fired for that $100 billion. imagine, war is going to cost 30 times that, or 50 times that, when you look at the long-term effects of caring for the rest of their lives for the soldiers who come back maimed. let's bring it back. on march 20, 2003, the united states armed forces at the

direction of president george w. bush commenced a very vigorous and violent attack upon the nation of iraq and its people. that was the beginning of the iraq war and the beginning of the united states' assault on and subsequent occupation of iraq. and he did it because this congress approved of it. and this congress approved of it because we were told that iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that iraq had the intention and capability of hurting the united states, that iraq had something to do with 9/11 and al qaeda's role on 9/11. mr. speaker, all false. now, the bible says you shall

know the truth and the truth shall set you free. we are sought that truth crushed to the ground will rise again. we are waiting to be freed from the lies that took us into war, but we cannot be freed until we have a reconciliation with the people of iraq, and we can't do that until we have truth. america is going to have to go through that period. we will never recover from 9/11 if we continue to move down the rabbit holes of war that were based on lies or based on a misreading of history and a misapplication of power. mr. speaker, can i ask how many more minutes i have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 10 minutes remaining. mr. kucinich: so where do we go from here? well, we have to get ready to

leave iraq. and we have to get ready to leave afghanistan and we have to stop bombing the borders along pakistan. we have to start working with the international community on matters of security, and if we need to continue to track down anyone who's associated with mass violence against the people of our country or any other country that should be a matter of international police action. and we must stop for the policies of interventionism. we must stop the reach for empire. it is destroying our nation. it's destroying us morally and it's destroying our capacity to be able to meet the needs of the american people for jobs, for housing, for health care, for education, for retirement security. we have to challenge the underlying premise about war being inevitable because as soon as people start beating the drums of war, there's an

entire marching ground at the pentagon -- band at the pentagon and people in the contracting business who are ready to try to make a case for war anytime and anyplace. we have to begin to critically analyze the mentality that issues forth, that causes to put so much of our resources on the line. general eisenhower served for this nation two terms. he said we should be aware of the military industrialized complex. we have to be careful what we're being told and the motivation of those outside of this congress who are telling certain stories of why we should go to war. it's time for us to come into resonance with our power to try to achieve diplomacy. i am not naive about the world, but i also understand that if we do not try to exercise our capacity to relate to people in other places, people may have

different ideologies, different religions, different colors, creed, if we do not try to pursue that then we are destined to have more war. if we pursue what president roosevelt quality the science of human relations, then we have the possibility. that we can move towards making peace, not war, inevitable. it's that type of thinking that led me to bring forward a proposal to create a cabinet level department of peace. i know there's people who say, oh, peace, right, ok, dennis. we got it. you want peace. next. and they try to project peace as impractical. mr. speaker, you want to -- talk impractical? how about a war that was based on lies and cost this country over $3 trillion? that's impractical. how about a war that cost the lives of over a million innocent iraqi civilians, a war that cost the lives of thousands upon thousands of our

troops and tens of thousands of our troops injured? that's impractical. we need to summon our capacity and our capability to be able to take this nation in a -- capabilities to be able to take this nation in a new quest not for empire, that pulls back its military resources which are spread all around the world to the cost of tens of trillions of -- billions of dollars annually -- tens of billions annually, and we need to start coming home. create peace at home. let's go to domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, violence in the school, gang violence, racial violence, violence against gays. if we started to focus on addressing violence in our society, the causal nature of it, not just the symptoms of it, not just the effects of it,

we may put ourselves on a path where we could in our nation create what many years ago people called a new jerusalem, a shining city on a hill, the potential to be able to have all of our material concerns met and be able to have peace. frankly, i don't know any other way we can do it except working towards peace, but we have to build structures of peace in our own nation and our own neighborhood. that's creating a department of peace is about. not creating a new bureaucracy. think about it, if we spend more than $1 trillion every year for wars in iraq and afghanistan and the pentagon budget all combined, wouldn't you think we ought to have a few bucks available to figure out how to create a more peaceful society so we don't doom another generation?

we have to start redefining who we are as a people. and this is as good as -- as good a time as any to do it. we are on the eighth anniversary of the initiation of the war against iraq, march 20, 2011. in the last hour, mr. speaker, i've sought to create a review of the record of what was said at the time to bring about the war, how the president and the vice president at that time did not tell the truth to the american people, did not tell the truth to congress, how the consequences have been extraordinary for the people of iraq, for the people of the united states, how many innocent civilians died, how we have to find a way to reconcile with the people of iraq, how we

will have to find a way to reconcile at some point with the people in afghanistan, the innocence who have died, how we have to recognize that there are some things in the world that are beyond our control, that we can't tell other people what kind of political system they should have. we cannot try to redesign the world according to what our idea of a democracy is. wouldn't it be nice if here in the united states we actually focused on creating the fullness of the democratic process which we were assured would have the chance to unfold with the independence of the united states and with the creation of our constitution? mr. speaker, i intend to keep bringing forth the truth of what happened that resulted in the united states being taken into war against iraq based on lies, and i intend to keep bringing forward alternatives so that we cannot just get out

of iraq and afghanistan but stop this reach for power abroad which comes at the expense of our vital needs at home. thank you very much, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burton: you know, mr. speaker, i wish every one of my colleagues and everybody in america would listen to this

special order tonight not because i want the attention but i just think there are some facts that the american people ought to know and my colleagues ought to know about our dependence on energy from other parts of the world. you know, it really bothers me that we continue to depend so much on our adversaries, people that aren't our friends, than we do on ourselves. we could be energy independent within a relevantly short period of time, and i'm talking about five to 10 years, if we just did certain things. and so tonight what i want to do is i want to point out to my colleagues and anybody else that might be paying attention where the energy is in america, what it is and how difficult it would be to extract it. now, right now people that are paying attention in their offices know that we're paying $3.60 or more for a gallon of gasoline. diesel fuel is over $4 a gallon, and my chief of staff went to the grocery store the other day and he told me he

bought two tomatoes that cost $5. he bought one avocado, one that cost $3. people tell me there's no inflation. that's bologna. the cost of gasoline is going -- that's baloney. the cost of gasoline is going up. it need not be that way. i talked to a fellow the other way that came in to see me about new technologies. and he told me if we developed our coal shale, converted it into oil we could lower the price per barrel of oil from $105 per barrel to $35 per barrel. do you know what it would do to the price of gasoline? it would go down to $1.40 a gallon. and what would that do to the economy? what would that do to the goods and services that we go across

the country for? we are not doing nothing. i want to tell you tonight where we are, what we could do if we start paying attention to what's here in the united states. the old adage goes, those that don't learn from history are going to make the same things over and over again. and apart from creating what we call the strategic petroleum reserve in this country we haven't done anything over the last 30 years to become energy independent. now, the strategic petroleum reserve is a reserve we set up so we if we have an emergency we'll have some oil in the ground that we could use for energy purposes. and it goes for maybe 90 days but 90 days is not a very long time and we could exhaust that in a very short period of time if we don't move toward energy independence. right now on the northern tier of africa, everybody that's paying attention knows we have problems in libya, we have problems in egypt, problems in tunisia, problems along the persian gulf coast, bahrain and the other countries, and we

have iran there. and there's a real possibility that we could see a terrible problem occur there in the future which would minimize our ability to get oil from that part of the world. we get over 30% of our energy from countries in that region and other places in the world where people don't like us very much. and if that place goes up in smoke the cost of energy, the cost of gasoline, the cost of everything that we have is going to skyrocket. and so we got to do something about that. in 1972 we imported 28% of our oil and energy from outside this country. you know what it is today? it's 62%. so we said we're going to be energy independent. it was 28% in the 1970's. we said we were going to be energy independent, a lot of people remember the long gas lines when opec tried to do us in. they remember people carrying gas cans to get five gallons of

gas to get to work. we remember that. we didn't do anything except create the strategic petroleum reserve which is only a 90-day supply. so we imported 26% or thereabouts in the 1970's and today instead of being energy independent we're importing 62%. we're more dependent on saudi arabia, venezuela and other parts of the world now than we were then by more than double, more than double our dependency on foreign oil. today, oil has gone up to over $105 a barrel. it may be down a little bit now. we're paying in many parts of the country close to $4 a gallon for gasoline and over $4 a gallon for diesel fuel which transports our goods and services across this country. oil is the lifeblood of this country. it supplies more than 40% of our energy needs and 99% of the fuel that we use in our cars and trucks. they talk about the new volt

automobile, electric car. that's going to solve our problems. they talk about windmills that are going to solve our problems. they talk about nuclear energy which is very problematic right now. they talk about all these other things, including solar energy, but all of that combined will not put a dent, not even a dent in our energy needs. and as we know right now, 99% of the fuel that we need for our cars and trucks comes from oil. and our current energy demand is about 21 1/2 million barrels of oil a day. now, what a lot of people don't realize is that for every one penny that it costs more per gasoline it increases the cost to consumers $4 million a day. so every time you go to the gas pump and you see the gas that has gone up a penny or nickel or 10 cents, for each penny it's $4 million hit on our economy each and every day. now, there's a lot of things i want to talk about but i won't have time to get into all of

them tonight, but the thing that's very disconcerting to me is that we have the energy that we need right here. for instance, if you look at this chart, this is oil production in this country. where's my figures on the barrels of oil. if we use the recoverable oil we have, the natural gas we have, the coal resources that we have, that's equivalent to 1.3 trillion barrels of oil. now when you realize we're only using about 21 million barrels of oil a day, you can see that we would have an almost inexhaustible supply of oil if we just used the resources that we have. let me give you some examples. in the arctic national wildlife refuge, we have about 10.4 billion barrels of oil, money double the proven reserves of the entire state of texas and almost half the total reserves

in the u.s., which is 22 billion barrels aloan, that's just in anwr alone, almost half of what we need. if we drilled in anwr, we could increase reserves by 50% in that up with area. president clinton vetoed the anwr production in 1995 and the united states could be getting almost 1.5 billion barrels of oil a day if we did that. instead we talk about energy independence but don't do anything about it. the president of the united states won't let us get new permits to drill offshore in the gulf of mexico or off the continental shelf or anwr or anywhere else. we continue to import oil. a lot of people don't realize this we spill more oil from the oil tankers that bring oil from saudi arabia and vens way lark we spill more oil each and every day than the oil that was spilled from that horrible tragedy that took place in the gulf of mexico. and yet we continue to import

with these tankers. and we say, oh, it's an environmental problem because look at what happened in the gulf of mexico. that's an excuse to not drill in this country because we are wasting energy by not getting it right here. as i said before, we're spilling more out of those tankers than we had in the gulf of mexico tragedy. so we ought to be drilling. we can do it in an environmentally safe way if the government of the united states and our regulators makes sure we watch the oil wells. the technology is there. as i said before, we have 1.8 trillion barrels of oil and as much as 8 trillion barrels of oil if we use the deposits we have in oil shale. maybe i haven't said that yet, but we do have. i had a fellow come in to see me the other day, i may have mentioned it to some of the people earlier, i get mixed up because we covered this thing before but he told me if we drilled here and used oil shale we could reduce he cost of oil

dramatically. dramatically, as much as 60% or 70%. and it would reduce overall cost of energy dramatically to our houses, our cars and our trucks, which bring goods and services and food across the country. currently the united states produces roughly 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas every year. 30 trillion feet of natural gas every year. if we went after the marleau se ulous shale formation where they have 20 trillion feet of natural gas, we could more than double our production of natural gas almost immediately. and we could use that natural gas to move our trucks. i had some leaders in the natural gas industry come to see us. they told me if we converted our 18 wheelers to transport goods and services across this country and food, if we just converted those to natural gas, we could cut our dependency on

foreign oil by 50%. that one thing. yet we're not drilling for that natural gas because the scradmrgs will not give the permits and move to utilize those resources that we have. the obama administration for whatever reason, i don't know if it's intentional or just because of ignorance, but they're not using our resources and they're not exploring for our resources. it makes me wonder sometimes if the environmental extremists in this country don't want us to go back to horse an buggy and using wood to heat our houses. they wouldn't want wood to be used to heat our houses because obviously they're concerned about things like the spotted owl. but the fact of the matter is, we in this country could -- could reduce our cost of living, could reduce our dependency on foreign oil, all we have to do is use our resources but we need the administration to do what's necessary and at a time when the world son the precipice of some major wars, we need to

move toward energy independence. if the gulf -- if the persian gulf goes up in smoke it's going to be disastrous for this economy. if venezuela and president chavez down there, who is a communist dictator if he decides not to let us have the oil we've been buying from him, it would be tragic for this country. and he's working with tehran, they have flights going back once every week, back anport and they're working together for thins that are -- other than the good of the united states of america. so we're dependent on people that don't like us, would like to see our free enterprise system and the freedoms we enjoy dissipate into smog and we're continuing to depend on them for foreign energy. the president has said it's a real danger to drill in the gulf of mexico. we want to protect the environment. yet we just sent $1 billion down to brazil so they could drill offhoar. now think about that. we're concerned about the environment and yet we're sending billions of our

taxpayers' dollars to brazil so they can do deep water exploration for oil. it maybes absolutely no sense whatsoever. the administration, just to let people know what's going on, the administration canceled 77 offshore drilling leases in utah -- or on shore drilling leases in utah just weeks after taking office. we had 77 on shore, in the continental united states drilling leases in utah that were going to be used to bring oil to the surface and natch rah ral -- natural gas and they stopped those weeks after they took office. pthalater reoffered only 17 of them. 60. we lost 60 potential areas of oil and gas. the administration's consistently delayed oil and shale development leases. the administration has repeatably blocked development in places like the anwr. i've been up to alaska. people talk about how it's going to hurt the environment up there and the bears and all the other animals. the anwr is way out in the boon

dobs. it's not going to -- boondocks. it's not going to hurt a thing. alaska is 3.5 times the size of texas. there's only 500,000 people up there. there's tremendous oil and other natural gas resources up there and we can't drill for them because of environmental concerns. it makes absolutely no sense. no sense whatsoever. america's reliance on oil and natural gas is going to continue for decades to come. there's no question about it. when the administration says we have to transition to other forms of energy, nuclear and solar and wind and other ways of getting energy, that's great. all of us want to do that. we all want a clean environment. but in the meantime, we have to rely on fossil fuels. because we're not going to be able to get where they want us to be by relying on other sources of energy for at least 10, 15, or 20 years.

so what are we supposed to do in the meantime? i don't think we should continue to be dependent on foreign sources of energy. america's reliance on natural gas is going to continue for decades to come and trying to ignore that reality by arguing that it takes time for new fuels to come online is simply passing the buck to the next generation. if we responded to the widespread outcry to drill three years ago the last time oil and gas lean prices for over $3.50 a tpwhron, we'd be that much closer to having additional supplies of domestic energy but we aren't. we're importing 62% of our energy and just a couple of decades ago it was only 26% or 28%. expanding america's energy production will lower prices, create new job rerks deuce our dependence on foreign oil and strengthen our national security and raise funds to help tackle our historic $1

trillion in national debt. one thing i hope all young people in this country will realize and all the seniors will realize we're passing on to that young jeng ration $14 trillion in debt. the debt has increased in the last three years by $4 trillion. from the beginning of the republic to the last three or four years, we didn't come close to that kind of spending. and yet we increased this debt in three years by $4 trillion. obamacare is going to add a great deal more to that. in addition to rationing health care and all the other things people have heard about. but the thing that concerns me most is the standard of living that we have today and what we're passing on to future generations. by not becoming energy independence, by running up these huge debts. because we're coming up with these new programs that we can't afford. by creating a bigger bureaucracy in washington,

including 15,000 new i.r.s. agents to implement the rules an regulations of things like obamacare. those things will add to the debt and the quality of life i had and my parents had it's going to dee tieror ate. i'm afraid we pass on to our children and grandchildren higher taxes, higher inflation, lower standard of living because we're living beyond our means today. natural gas and oil shale, coal shale and oil are ways to cut our dependence on foreign oil and reduce the dependency on government and lower the costs we're incurring as far as our national debt is concerned. i don't know what we have to do to cop vince the administration, sometimes i wonder if it's because they're not aware of the future, they're not aware of what's going on or maybe they're just doing it on purpose because the president believes in more government control over various parts of our society. 1/6 of our society is health care and that's been

nationalized by the obamacare plan which we're trying to repeal because that will create long lines to get to see a doctor and socialized medicine. that's all a result of more government control and more government spending an more national debt. can you imagine what it would be like if we came back in 50 years, i probably won't be around then, i'm sure i won't but we come back in 50 years and there's some young person struggling to get along and they say, why in the world did our fathers and grandfathers leave this kind of a society for us? they lived so much better. the cost of living was lower. the cost of energy was lower. the cost of health care was lower. everything was lower. they lived so much better than us. why dnd they -- didn't they make sure we had that quality of life? and the answer is simply we're not doing it. we're opening up the government credit card, we're charging all this money, we're depending on other sources of energy from other countries and the credit card just keeps gathering steam

and gathering more debt and gathering more debt an gathering more debt. if my colleagues in their offices were paying attention right now and said to their wives, we overspent last month by $5,000, what are we going to do? their wives and the wives of the people that might be paying attention would say, we've got to cut back from spending, we've got to budget our money. we can't live like this, we'll go bankrupt. i'll tell you right now, america is in the same situation. we're bankrupt but we're printing money as fast as we can to keep from declaring bankruptcy. they talk about social security being insolvent in 15 or 20 years if you go into the vaults and look at social security receipts it's a bunch of paper. they've used that money for other purposes. we're paying, we're robbing peter to pay paul for medicare and social security as we live today. so we just add to the debt and add to the liability that we leave to the future generations. so if i were talking to the president tonight, mr. speaker,

i would say, mr. president, if you love this country as much as we love this country, then take steps to do what's necessary to cut spending. to do away with a lot of these paesful programs that aren't accomplishing anything. to make sure we come up with a health care plan that doesn't create a dependency on government by doing tort reform and coming up with savings accounts so people can deduct from their taxes to pay for a lot of their own health care needs. there's a bunch of things we can do without socialized medicine system of i'd say to mr. president, let's look at other avenues. let's re-evaluate obamacare and come up with a solution that's not going to put this country in red ink add infinitum. i'd say the new programs you're talking about are the programs we tried for years and years that have been nothing but a drain on taxpayers' dollars but haven't improved anything. let me give you one example. i hate to digress from this